The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Sotomayor Asks Texas Governor Abbott To Grant Executive Reprieve To Death Row Prisoner
Case of the Speluncean Explorers Redux
Tonight the Supreme Court denied a stay of execution in Roberson v. Texas. There were no noted dissents, but Justice Sotomayor issued a ten-page statement respecting the denial of the application. Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that the defendant "presents no cognizable federal claim." Therefore, the Court cannot grant relief. But the final paragraph includes an unusual plea:
Under these circumstances, a stay permitting examination of Roberson's credible claims of actual innocence is imperative; yet this Court is unable to grant it. That means only one avenue for relief remains open: an executive reprieve. In Texas, as in virtually every other State and the federal government, "[t]he Executive has the power to exercise discretion to grant clemency and affect sentences atany stage after an individual is convicted[.]" Vandyke v. State, 538 S. W. 3d 561, 581 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 2017).Preventing the execution of one who is actually innocent bymeans of a review "unhampered by legal technicalities" is a core historical purpose of the executive power to grant pardons or reprieves. Christen Jensen, The Pardoning Power in the American States 49 (1922); see also Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 417 (1993) ("History shows that the traditional remedy for claims of innocence based on new evidence, discovered too late in the day to file a new trial motion, has been executive clemency"); Graham v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 913 S. W. 2d 745, 748 (Tex. Ct.Crim. App. 1996) (same). An executive reprieve of thirty days would provide the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles with an opportunity to reconsider the evidence of Roberson's actual innocence. That could prevent a miscarriage of justice from occurring: executing a man who has raised credible evidence of actual innocence.
Yes, you read that right. Justice Sotomayor issued a plea for clemency to Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
Last week I wrote about the potential for clemency in Glossip v. Oklahoma. I noted that one of the justices in the fictional "Case of the Speluncean Explorers" likewise asked the Executive for clemency. I can't recall a Supreme Court justice making a similar request. But Justice Sotomayor may be one of the first.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Justice Felix Frankfurter tried to do it in a back channel way in the William Francis case:
"Frankfurter was so troubled by his own vote that he later attempted to effect politically what he had been unwilling to do judicially. He reached out to an attorney friend in Louisiana to use his influence on Gov. Jimmie Davis to have the death sentence of Willie Francis commuted to life imprisonment -- a virtually unprecedented attempt to overturn his own decision. "I have little doubt that if Louisiana allows Francis to go to his death," Frankfurter wrote, "it will needlessly cast a cloud upon Louisiana for many years to come, and, what is more important, probably leave many of its citizens with disquietude."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2006/07/19/the-two-executions-of-willie-francis/3fc23c1a-f990-41b2-b24c-0c45facab462/
Note that under the Texas Constitution (Art. 4(11)(b)), the governor can only grant clemency if the state Board of Pardons and Paroles authorizes it, except as follows: “The Governor shall have the power to grant one reprieve in any capital case for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.”
Since the Board of Pardons and Paroles already refused to recommend clemency, the governor’s only option, as Sotomayor said, would be a 30 day reprieve in hopes that the Board reverses its earlier decision.
So even if the governor wants to spare the defendant (which I don’t know), he may think attempting it is a waste of time in view of the Pardon Board’s attitude.
“But the governor appointed the people on the Pardon Board!” Maybe so, and that part you can blame him for - if Sotomayor is right about the injustice of the death sentence.
The Texas "Constitution" Act notwithstanding, does the Texas legislature actually have the authority under their own constitution to infringe on the executive branch's pardon power in the first place?
I ask because that cool State Constitution Tool has an index for 'separation of powers' clauses and Texas' looks pretty strong.
If I were governor, I'd order him done five minutes sooner. It wouldn't change anything for him, and it would send a message. I don't tell you what to do - don't tell me.
If you were governor, would you consider whether you agree with her point before you decided that?
No. It's not her job to be 'making points.' I would already be doing my job without her butting in to tell me what to do. I'm governor - she's a Supreme Court justice. If she wants to grant clemency in Texas, she can run for office. The people voted for me. Got it?
Yes: you think spite is a basis to execute someone.
I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle, but knowing that it is administered by a human system populated by people as thoughtful and perfect as JonFrum certainly gives me pause about the penalty in practice. Also, we are currently witnessing a medical trend akin to the sterilization and lobotomization movements of the twentieth century and have some decent evidence of the junk science and unreliability of expert opinions in repressed memory and previous shaken baby cases, which should give Governor Abbott pause.
“The Case of the Speluncean Explorers” was the reading assignment for intro week at law school in California. It was mailed to us ahead of time. I read it over coffee at the Hardee’s in Caruthersville, Mo. on my way there. I was fascinated. In fact, after ten years in the work world, law school (most of it) was a fascinating adventure. I spent a great deal of time in the library, and most of my reading was not related to class work (much to the detriment of my grades). This was as opposed to most of the other law students who had been in school their whole lives and couldn't wait to get out.
Meanwhile, the execution was held up in state court.
To be continued.
I don't see this as any big deal. She's as entitled to ask this as anybody.
Unlike in the Glossip case, here it's unclear there has even been a murder at all. There is, at the least, a conflict of medical experts on the reliability of diagnosing abusive head trauma from the symptoms found here. The girl was sick and at least some doctors think her death can be explained by a combination of sickness, wrong prescriptions by doctors and an accidental short fall from the bed. How one can support a conviction, let alone an execution, under such circumstances? Even if you support the death penalty, shouldn't it be reserved for the worst of the worst -- premeditated intentional murder, with zero doubt as to the perpetrator?
It wouldn't be the first time Texas has executed someone where there was no crime. - Cameron Todd Willingham, for example.
I agree with the "worst of the worst" rule but the concern here is proof. IF you grant government's argument, there is previous evidence of child abuse which goes to premeditation.
A spur of the moment emotionally based child abuse death is horrible but would not be a "worst of the worst" example. The Supreme Court in the past roughly used that rule.
Why would someone premeditating a child's murder take her to the pediatrician for checkups?
He's lucky he was sentenced to death. I have several clients who are in prison because of this junk science, but because my state doesn't have the death penalty, the national left wing interest groups don't provide any support.
But I repeat that this stuff is bad science. In my opinion every single person who is in prison based on it should be freed.
In the early 1900's, when Jolly Olde was debating capital punishment Churchill said something along the lines of "I fear that opponents of the death penalty underestimate the cruelty of life in prison".